country were at war with her colonies, the law could not punish those who assisted the latter; but if they enlisted in the service of the mother country, which was a legitimate power, they were guilty of felony. It was important to the country that the law should decide, that no man should have a right to enlist in foreign service That, in fact, was the meaning of the acts of George 2nd, and those acts would have been so expressed, if the circumstances which had since occurred had been foreseen. The second provision of this bill was rendered necessary by the consideration, that assistance might be rendered to foreign states, through the means of the subjects of this country, not only by their enlisting in warfare, but by their fitting out ships for the purposes of war. In this second provision of the bill, two objects were intended to be embraced-to prevent the fitting out of armed vessels, and also to prevent the fitting out or supplying other ships with war, like stores in any of his majesty's ports. He proposed that the penalty on the first offence should be for a misdemeanor; on the second, for a felony.

Sir James Mackintosh said, that if he could consider the present measure merely as the introduction of a reform into our criminal law, he should have contented himself with giving it his support. The repeal of the two statutes of George II he highly approved of: they were founded merely on temporary circumstances, and enacted penalties revolting to humanity, and which therefore now could never be

inflicted they had been de scribed by his hon. and learned friend as applying to all times and circumstances, but history would show him that they were merely intended to prevent the formation of Jacobite armies in France and Spain. Though the attorney general had endeavoured to disguise the subject, and keep out of view the immediate objects which the proposed measure was designed to serve, it was impossible to mistake its character, or to avoid seeing its evident tendency. The bill, however it might be worded, however its object was concealed, might be entitled, " a bill to prevent British subjects from lending their assistance to the South American cause, or enlisting in the South American service." On the general subject of the law, as it was now proposed to be amended, he would not make many observations. It was impossible to deny that the sovereign power of every state could interfere to prevent its subjects from engaging in the wars of other states, by which its own peace might be endangered, or its interests affected. Why was the House called upon to assert a principle which no one doubted, unless it was meant to apply it to temporary objects? Was honest neutrality intended by the measure? The principles of neutrality only required us to maintain the laws in being, but they could not command us to change any law; least of all, to alter our laws for the evident advantage of one of the parties. His hon. and learned friend had said that the enactments of his bill placed both upon a level,

a level, but so far as they changed the existing law, they were entirely in favour of one party, and so far a departure from neutrality. It ought to be recollected, that those who assisted insurgent states, however respectable, were in a much worse situation than such as assisted recognised governments, as they could not be reclaimed as prisoners of war, and might, as engaging in what was called rebellion, be treated as rebels. This new law would go to alter the relative risks, and operate as a law of favour to one party. He would not now enter further into the proposed enactment, as other opportunities would offer: In the meantime he could not refrain from expressing his disapprobation of a measure which he could consider in no other light than as an enactment to repress the rising liberty of the South Americans, and to enable Spain to reimpose that yoke of tyranny which they were unable to bear, which they had nobly shaken off, and from which he trusted in God they would finally be enabled to free themselves, whatever attempts were made by the ministers of this or any other country, to countenance or assist their oppressors.

Lord Castlereagh protested against the introduction of the political topics with which the hon. and learned gentleman had filled his speech; a speech which, while it professed to advocate the principles of neutrality, was as far from the spirit of neutrality as any which he had ever heard in that House. He would appeal to the House and the country whether they would depart from

that regard which they owed to an acknowledged and friendly state, by allowing our subjects openly to take part with its enemies. This law was necessary to prevent us from giving cause of war to Spain against us; and he was sure that the House was too just and too generous to think that because Spain was weak, and because her fortunes had declined, we ought to permit her to be oppressed, and to do that which we should not have done had she been in other circumstances. He would ask the hon. and learned gentleman himself whether, if common justice was not sufficient, it was not our duty to carry into effect the intentions we professed. Was not the proclamation issued about 18 months ago, approved, both in this country and America, as perfectly just in the principles of neutrality which it professed? And was it not a breach of that proclamation, when not only individuals, not only officers in small numbers, went out to join the insurgent corps, but when regiments regularly formed left this country, when ships of war were prepared in our ports, and transports were chartered to carry out provisions and ammunition? It was to prevent this that the present bill was brought in, and he thought he owed some apology to the House and the country for not bringing it in sooner. Till lately, in fact, there was some hope of a mediation between Spain and her colonies, and so long as that hope lasted, he wished to say nothing of the general policy of the existing laws; but all such expectations were now at an end,

and

and it became us to adopt a general system by which our conduct towards the parties should be guided whilst the war continued. He should be ready to give explanation at the different stages of the bill or to support its different clauses, but he must again protest against such conduct as the hon. and learned gentleman's, who found out partiality where none was intended, and declared that we were unjust to one of the parties, because we wished to place both on the same footing.

Mr. George Lamb contended that if this measure was now justifiable we were remiss in not enacting it sooner. It appeared to him however to proceed from no regard to neutrality, from no returning sense of justice, but to be intended to prevent the people of this country from going to the assistance of those who were struggling for their liberties, against what he would not trust himself with describing. It would have been much better to have declared this specific object than to have concealed it under a general enactment, through which it was easily seen.

Mr. Wynn supported the bill, but objected to that clause of it which went to aggravate a second offence into a capital felony. After a few remarks from other members, leave was given to bring in the bill.

On June 3rd, on a motion for the second reading of the bill, Sir Robert Wilson rose to oppose it. He observed that the attorney general, in moving for leave to bring in the bill, had desired to be regarded as alone re

sponsible for the measure, but the noble lord opposite, in the debate which had attended even its introduction, did not consider it in that abstract and isolated view, but as a measure connected with our foreign policy. This avowal was at least candid, as it brought the question before the House on its proper merits. The clause which made a repetition of the offence a felony, and punishable with seven years transportation, had since been withdrawn, in deference, no doubt, to the expression of public opinion, but the original design of regarding it as a felony, was demonstrative of the animus of the projectors. Before he proceeded to argue the question on the ground of general policy, he should show that it was not entitled to any respect from analogy with the other enactments referred to. The hon. gentleman here entered at some length into an historical survey of the circumstances under which preceding enactments against foreign enlistment had been passed. He then added, that from general history it was clear, that such a principle as the present bill disclosed was never acted upon, even where Great Britain herself was one of the belligerents, and to this effect he cited many striking examples. It was surely he said enough, without enacting any penalties of our own, to refer those who should be disposed to enlist in the South American service to the ordinance made by Ferdinand a few months ago, devoting all who should engage in it to the most ignominious death. He must describe this bill as a bill not called for, a bill

which policy rejected and humanity condemned, a bill in favour of Ferdinand and inauspicious to liberty. He moved as an amendment, that it be read this day six months.

Mr. Denman, in arguing against the bill, dwelt particularly on the injury which it would inflict on our commerce, particularly by means of clauses which authorized the detention of ships on board which any person or persons should be embarked, suspected of an intention of entering into a foreign

service.

Mr. Wynn supported the bill at considerable length: he was answered by Mr. F. Douglas, who remarked, that the hon. gentleman who had spoken last had said, that the principle of the present bill was recognised in the policy of every other state, and we should be singular in refusing to accede to it. Such a singularity was a thing not at all alarming; he should be more alarmed at a conformity with the policy of foreign states. A minister of this country, when pressed to do any thing inconsistent with the laws to please foreign despots, should answer, I cannot.

Mr. Marryat contended, that previously to altering our laws for the purpose of giving Spain an advantage over her colonies, we were bound seriously to weigh the justice of the cause in which we engaged. Of the unparalleled despotism and iniquity of the Spanish government in South America, he said it was in his power to speak from personal knowledge and observation, and he entered into a detailed account

of the transactions between Spain and her colonies since 1808, and of the comparative merits and demerits towards Great Britain of Ferdinand and of the Independents. He looked with confidence to the ultimate success of the Independents in their great struggle, and pointed out the importance to our commercial interests of conciliating them without delay. Spain, he said, has no right to injure the peace and prosperity of the whole commercial world, by continuing her fruitless attempt to subjugate South America. All the maritime states of Europe, and Great Britain in particular, suffer from it in various ways. Out of it a race of freebooters and pirates have sprung, who plunder all legitimate commerce without distinction, and who can never be subdued till peace and good order are restored. Our laws, as they now stand, give no advantages to the Independents that are not counterbalanced by other advantages given to Spain. If British officers and troops embark in the cause of the Independents, arms and ammunition, the supply of which to them is prohibited, are not only permitted to Spain, but British ships of war convoy ships so laden to the ports of their destination. At this very moment the harbour of Cadiz is full of British vessels hired as transports to carry out the troops destined to act against them; whilst all assistance to their cause is prohibited by the proclamations of the governors of our free ports in the West Indies. Much, he observed, had been said about the treaty with Spain of 1814,

but

but this bound us to nothing more than to prevent the supply of arms, ammunition, and warlike stores to the revolted provinces. The hon. member ended with a strong protest against the government of Ferdinand VII.

After some words of reply from Mr. C. Robinson, Mr. Macdonald recapitulated and enforced the arguments of his hon. friends in opposition to the bill. The present measure, he said, how ever supported by the learning and logic of Doctors' Commons, whatever abstract reasoning might be employed in its behalf, did mainly and effectually go to the destruction of the independent patriots of South America. He entertained considerable doubt whether the House would have the heart to pass such a bill as was now attempted to be thrust upon the nation. The nation revolted at it; the nation had been content to act on the system of non-interference, but further than this it would not go in opposition to its best feelings. The feelings of the English people were not to be trifled with. The government, solid as its institutions were, mainly rested, after all, on public opinion. Popular prejudice it might dissipate; popular error it might encounter; but the public opinion, founded on the good and generous feelings of the universal British nation, would be found to be stronger than even power itself.

Lord Castlereagh defended the provisions of the bill, and replied to some of the accusations brought against the king of Spain. On the question of the second

reading of the bill, the House divided; Ayes, 155; Noes, 142.

Of these, Sir

On June 10th, a motion for going into a committee on the foreign enlistment bill, produced again an animated debate, principally conducted by the same members who had taken part in the former ones. James Mackintosh distinguished himself by a speech of uncommon force, learning, and eloquence, which was heard with profound attention, and greeted by longcontinued cheers from both sides of the House. It was replied to by Mr. Canning in a strain of splendid oratory, but no adequate idea of either speech can be conveyed by us in an abridged form. Several amendments were put and carried; at length, on June 21st, after elaborate speeches from Sir. W. Scott and Dr. Phillimore, and one of distinguished ability and eloquence from Mr. Robert Grant in favour of the act, and speeches of great and various merit from Mr. Scarlett, lord Nugent, and Mr. Grenville Vernon against it, the bill was finally carried by a majority of 190 voices to 129.

On June 28th, the bill was introduced in the House of Lords by Earl Bathurst in a speech of considerable length.

Lord Holland then rose, and began by remarking on the great variety of motives which have been adduced before the House for passing the bill, and the great variety of grounds on which its policy was defended. If in the ordinary transactions between man and man in ordinary life, we found a person who stated

various